 |
DarwinTalk.com
Evolution Debate and Public Discussion Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: Evolutionist can't explain origin of gender and ..... |
 |
|
Evolutionists can't explain origin of gender and sexual reproduction.
Here is an excerpt from an essay at TrueOrigins.org:
In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:
| Quote: | ‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]
The same year that Bell released his book, well-known evolutionist Philip Kitcher noted: “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.”[2] Evolutionists since have freely admitted that the origin of gender and sexual reproduction still remains one of the most difficult problems in biology (see, for example, Maynard-Smith, 1986, p. 35).
from: Evolutionary Theories on Gender and Sexual Reproduction at: http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp
|
Jonathon Safarti wrote:
| Quote: | Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter11.asp
|
In addition, evolutionists face the following problem:
| Quote: | Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, we never learn exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. But how do evolutionists explain this? When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. How could nature evolve a female member of a species that produces eggs and is internally equipped to nourish a growing embryo, while at the same time evolving a male member that produces motile sperm cells? And, further, how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells? [Somatic cells reproduce via the process of mitosis, which maintains the species’ standard chromosome number; gametes are produced via the process of meiosis, which halves that number. We will have more to say about both processes later.]....
It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.
‘No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away’[32] [emp. added].
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136
|
Lastly, the human female reproductive mechanism uses scent. The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Cubist
Pit Bull
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: Evolutionist can't explain origin of gender and ..... |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Evolutionists can't explain origin of gender and sexual reproduction. |
You're in luck, MB! The Index to Creationist Claims includes a page on exactly this claim -- "Sex is too complex for its origin to be explained by evolution." -- and it includes useful references to some of the real work done by real scientists on this topic. This means you have a golden opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of Creationism, and not just assert it, by directly addressing the evidence and actual arguments used by actual scientists, as opposed to merely parrotting the distorted versions thereof that Creationists are so fond of! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corynski
Sea Monkey
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: tennessee
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MB said:
| Quote: | Evolutionists can't explain origin of gender and sexual reproduction.
|
Nonsense. Try reading Carl Zimmer's chapter 10, 'Passion's Logic: The Evolution of Sex' if you want some ideas.
So what can ID or Creationism explain? Zero. Because religion has no method, and obviously no one can agree upon anything.
You seem to miss the point. Science is a method that is trying to understand what we see around us. Religion is a dictatorship based on human foibles; myths and stories about what primitive peoples thought was happening. It just turns out they were wrong, and there are no gods or goddesses, or trolls or toothfairies....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Posts: 199
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: Re: Evolutionist can't explain origin of gender and ..... |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Lastly, the human female reproductive mechanism uses scent. The mechanism gives a scent that only attracts the sperm cells that it was designed to attract. How could this mechanism evolve step-by-step? |
Seems to me the question is backwards about. How could such a complex system evolve except step by step? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corynski
Sea Monkey
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: tennessee
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The book I am referencing is Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution - The Triumph of an Idea', Part 3 - Evolution's Dance. He relates the latest theories about the origin of asexual and sexual reproduction, and sexual selection among various critters, including humans. And a great discussion comparing Chimps and Bonobos.
Here are a few quotes:
"Sex, biologists now suspect, is itself an evolutionary adaptation. It gives sexual organisms a competitive edge over ones that reproduce without males and females. But while sex may benefit both males and females, it creates a conflict of interest between them. The best reproductive strategy for a male is not the same as the female's."
"Sex fights off parasites. Parasites take a tremendous toll on their hosts, and any adaptation that helps hosts escape them may become hugely successful."
See also Zimmer's book 'Parasite Rex' for a description of the evolutionary aspects of parasites upon humans and other critters. What? Parasites directing evolution? Great book.
"The advantages of sex have allowed it to come into existence dozens of times, in many separate lineages of animals, plants, red algae, and other eukaryotes. The first sexual animals probably just sprayed their sex cells (gametes) into an ocean current and let them struggle to find each other. .........When the sperm fuses to the egg, it unloads only the DNA in its nucleus; its mitochondria and other organelles are blocked from entering."
It took millions of years for the sequence to evolve, obviously.
Evolution is so beautiful. Dawkins had it right in the 'Selfish Gene'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
And so what if evolution can't explain (insert biological function here)?
Just because it can't explain this function now doesn't mean that said function is necessarily dependent on a supernatural entity, much less than that supernatural entity being the Christian God of the Bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corynski
Sea Monkey
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: tennessee
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
It appears that the gods and goddeses love parasites even more than non parasitic critters. Even more than the thousands of species of beetles, I'll bet. Here's Zimmer's comments:
"Wherever there is life, there are parasites. There are 10 billion viruses in every quart of seawater. There are parasitic flatworms that can live in the bladders of desert toads, which stay buried underground 11months of the year; there are parasitic crustaceans that live only in the eyes of the Greenland shark, which swims the icy darkness of the Atlantic Ocean."
And here's another curious example regarding sex and gender: "Axexual animals are rare but they exist. Some species of whiptail lizards in the western United States, for instance, have no males. One female will mount another female, bite her neck, wrap around her like a reptilian doughnut, and otherwise mimic what a male lizard does while mating. Herpetologist suspect that the mounting female makes the other female ovulate. But she needs no sperm to fertilize her egs. They simply start dividing and growing into embryos. As these clones begin to develop, their mothers return the favor to their pseudomates by playing the part of the male. When the lizards give birth, they produce only females, all of which are identical to their mothers."
Hmmmm...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two words:
Guinea Worm
That intelligent designer is a sick bastard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
corynski
Sea Monkey
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 10
Location: tennessee
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
